I, personally, don’t think that the Republican Party would, particularly, benefit from the advice from some out there to abandon the social conservatives and just run full-bore as the fiscally conservative/strong national defense party. Oh, they’d pick up a vote here or there but for every vote they’d pick up here or there, they’d lose two or three (or four) in other places and it would not only not balance out, it’d be a net loss.
I’m more of the opinion that the Republicans abandoned the Fiscally Conservative wing of the party with a sneering “where are you going to go, the Democrats?” while doing a fairly good job with the Social Conservative issues (judges, mostly) and a decent job with the Defense Hawks (Iraq, mostly)… and had they treated the Fiscal Conservatives as well as the other two wings, there would be mutterings and grumblings (much as we see from the Social and Defense Conservatives) but there would not have been the huge losses seen between 2006 and 2008. As such, I think that it would be best for the Republicans to go back to their roots and say that a true Conservative is Socially Conservative, Fiscally Conservative, and a believer in a strong national defense… anyone who is two of the three is welcome, of course… but needs to understand that the topics where their input is welcome is on the two and not the third. Anyone who is one of the three can show up, of course, but that one topic is where we’d like to have them help out and the other two can be discussed at a later date (always in the future, never realized). A Guiliani is a delight and makes the party stronger… but let’s keep talking about Defense when you’re on the podium and not talk about abortion or what have you. Huckabee is more than welcome to discuss social issues… but please have the band ready to play him off (perhaps with Souza’s “Liberty Bell”?) if he starts talking about fiscal issues. So on and so forth. (I actually go into a lot more detail here.)
This diary is not about that. This will probably be much more devoted to discussion of theory (that is to say, arguing). A recent diary had a threadjack (inspired by me, sorry about that EPU) where issues of Liberty… especially those pertaining to sodomy, drugs, and pornography… came up. The topic of gay marriage came up. I’m sure that, if left to its own devices, we would have covered Lawrence v. Texas, limits of state power, the Ninth Amendment, Prohibition, penumbras, emanations, and all sorts of things.
The comments of this diary will be devoted for that. Or, I suppose, if you’ve not pointed out to a Libertarian recently that the Constitution was intended for a moral people and it just won’t work with an immoral one and have him point out that that line of argumentation leads to semi-automatic handguns being made illegal and you want to point out that that is completely and totally different, the comments can be for that too.
And if you’ve always had a question that you’re sure would stump a libertarian, ask it here. I’ll do my best to answer it in good faith. If you’ve been sitting on an insult that you’ve always wanted to deliver to a libertarian, give it here. If you want to just dive in and explain that the Constitution/Declaration of Independence couldn’t mean *THAT*, go ahead and do that too.